Obamacare Meets Monty Python

[Chris]

Tired of it yet? Let's try some humor!


Obamacare Meets Monty Python (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/obamacare-meets-monty-python-9349)


“’Tis but a scratch!”

So insists the knight after King Arthur cuts off his left arm in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. When Arthur severs his right arm and begs him to surrender, the obstreperous knight again refuses: “Just a flesh wound,” he claims.

Given the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, one could easily conflate Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ performance on Capitol Hill recently with Python’s knight scene. Secretary Sebelius had no explanation for what has caused the massive technological failures behind the law’s exchanges, didn’t explain how they would be fixed—and didn’t say who would be held to account for failing to get the implementation right.

In fact, when asked by one Congressman whether the President himself was “ultimately responsible” for the healthcare.gov fiasco, Sebelius responded, “Whatever.”

The President himself is also in denial about the train wreck unfolding before him. Hours after Sebelius’ testimony, the President pooh-poohed the news that millions of Americans will need to shop for new health insurance after losing their current coverage due to Obamacare. In a speech in Boston, the President tried to blame insurance companies for cancelling policies—due to requirements his administration put into place. In other words, “Nothing to see here. Move it along.”

The President also claimed that individuals losing their current plan will get “a better deal.” However, a recent Heritage Foundation study found that the law will raise premiums in the exchanges in 45 states, in some cases causing rates to more than double. So much for the promise of “bending the cost curve down.”....

OK, not so humorous after all. And that mixed metaphor Monty Python knight scene and a train wreck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXY9TuuwyL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jUjoQxv-fQ

[Cigar]

Care to explain why ObamaCare is soooooooo successful in the backyard of Mich and Rand; Kentucky?

:) take your time, you'll need a credible excuse :)

[hanger4]

Care to explain why ObamaCare is soooooooo successful in the backyard of Mich and Rand; Kentucky?

:) take your time, you'll need a credible excuse :)

So you sayin' Kentucky gots lots young healthy people sigin' up ??

To tell Cigar ??

[Cigar]

The Kentucy Govenor was on The Ed show for the first half hour. 32k registered, 400 Business and it's all verifiable factual data that was shown on TV.

Deny all you want.

[Cigar]

This time next year, ObamaCare will be Huge. :)

[Captain Obvious]

This time next year, ObamaCare will be Huge. :)

The Cleveland Browns have been saying that about themselves for decades.

[hanger4]

The Kentucy Govenor was on The Ed show for the first half hour. 32k registered, 400 Business and it's all verifiable factual data that was shown on TV.

Deny all you want.

Not denying anything kid, just sayin'

if half or more ain't young and healthy

it ain't no success.

[keymanjim]

This time next year, ObamaCare will be Huge. :)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/keymanjim/tumblr_m5kr8icjvA1rnde1eo1_500_zps5f2a6fdb.gif (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/keymanjim/media/tumblr_m5kr8icjvA1rnde1eo1_500_zps5f2a6fdb.gif.htm l)

[KC]

Here's a graphic of the data found by Heritage the OP mentions:
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2013/10/ib4068_table1_600.ashx

[Spookycolt]

This time next year, ObamaCare will be Huge. :)

It will be a huge win for the GOP in the mid-terms.

Obamacare ain't looking so good right now.

[patrickt]

The Kentucy Govenor was on The Ed show for the first half hour. 32k registered, 400 Business and it's all verifiable factual data that was shown on TV.

Deny all you want.

Mr. Ed, the talking horse? I thought he died.

32,000 registered. Wow. If true, that's amazing. Let's see, 32,000 from 4,400,000 leaves, what? Oh, right, hardly anyone.

Only amazing because it would be the first thing ever on the Mr. Ed show that was true. Horses can't really talk.

I do agree Obamacare will be huge. That's why most Democrats running for election say, "Obama what? Never heard of it. Never voted for it. Don't know what you're talking about. And, it's all the Republicans' fault."

[Mr Happy]

Here's a graphic of the data found by Heritage the OP mentions:
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2013/10/ib4068_table1_600.ashx

why has it gone up in some states and down in others?

[Codename Section]

why has it gone up in some states and down in others?

You mean why did it only go down in 5 states? They didn't change the regulations to allow competition so states with more insurance companies will see lower premiums, states with fewer will see higher premiums.

[Mr Happy]

You mean why did it only go down in 5 states? They didn't change the regulations to allow competition so states with more insurance companies will see lower premiums, states with fewer will see higher premiums.

Sounds more like a state issue than an Obamacare issue...

[jillian]

why has it gone up in some states and down in others?

Because in some states it's being intentionally sabotaged by rightwing governors.

Plus his "data" is from the heritage foundation and is likely questionable.

[Codename Section]

Sounds more like a state issue than an Obamacare issue...

Why is that a state issue when the same dudes who brought us Obamacare cock blocked insurance companies selling over state lines?

[Codename Section]

Because in some states it's being intentionally sabotaged by rightwing governors.

Plus his "data" is from the heritage foundation and is likely questionable.

Oh jillian... I'm sure Vermont has a right-wing governor.

[AmazonTania]

Because in some states it's being intentionally sabotaged by rightwing governors.

Plus his "data" is from the heritage foundation and is likely questionable.

Feel free to rise above ad hominems and offer more than just your ignorant say so.

[KC]

Because in some states it's being intentionally sabotaged by rightwing governors.

Plus his "data" is from the heritage foundation and is likely questionable.

The figures show the approximate average unsubsidized cost changes in premiums. Many people will receive subsidies, and the change in price reflects that.

[Chris]

Because in some states it's being intentionally sabotaged by rightwing governors.

Plus his "data" is from the heritage foundation and is likely questionable.



And your evidence for any of your accusations is, what, besides innuendo.

[AmazonTania]

Oh jillian... I'm sure Vermont has a right-wing governor.

Jillian is so blinded by partisan hackery, she somehow forgot that Andrew Cuomo isn't right wing...

We have very informed voters in New York as you can see...

[Codename Section]

Jillian is so blinded by partisan hackery, she somehow forgot that Andrew Cuomo isn't right wing...

Well, she's got rose colored glasses on when it comes to Obama. A lot of women do. The lady who lives next door to us moved from San Fran (wish she'd move back) and she was telling me how he had "the best smile". I was like Candace Swanpool has great tits but I wouldn't vote for her for president.

[Cthulhu]

This time next year, ObamaCare will be Huge. :)

Not all things that grow are good.

This is more akin to a malignant tumor. But yes, you're right, it will be huge. And horrible.

[Mr Happy]

Why is that a state issue when the same dudes who brought us Obamacare cock blocked insurance companies selling over state lines?

So who exactly introduced the legislation to block insurance companies and who passed it. What is it called?

[Codename Section]

So who exactly introduced the legislation to block insurance companies and who passed it. What is it called?

Uhhh, Obamacare? And that would be the Democrats.

[Mr Happy]

Uhhh, Obamacare? And that would be the Democrats.

ok. i'm confused. If it part of Obamacare, then why are some states cheaper? You just said "They didn't change the regulations to allow competition." So why were they allowed to but other states aren't??

[Codename Section]

ok. i'm confused. If it part of Obamacare, then why are some states cheaper? You just said "They didn't change the regulations to allow competition." So why were they allowed to but other states aren't??

Obamacare is the regulation that prevents it.

[Mr Happy]

Obamacare is the regulation that prevents it.

But only for certain states?

[Codename Section]

But only for certain states?

No. Ugh. I'm trying to tell you that the Obamacare regulations prevent insurance companies from selling across state regulatory lines. As Obamacare changed/increased regulations certain states went from 30 providers down to 4 or it may have even be 2.

[BB-35]

Well, she's got rose colored glasses on when it comes to Obama. A lot of women do. The lady who lives next door to us moved from San Fran (wish she'd move back) and she was telling me how he had "the best smile". I was like Candace Swanpool has great tits but I wouldn't vote for her for president.

Hell,I would!

[zelmo1234]

Care to explain why ObamaCare is soooooooo successful in the backyard of Mich and Rand; Kentucky?

:) take your time, you'll need a credible excuse :)

It is not people are signing up for the expanded Medicaid! I think it is funny 8 people are loosing their insurance to every one signing up and about 80% are signing up for Medicaid!

th law is actually worse that we have been told!

[Codename Section]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1454622_10152017085771489_792923973_n.jpg


Lie down with dogs...

[Mr Happy]

No. Ugh. I'm trying to tell you that the Obamacare regulations prevent insurance companies from selling across state regulatory lines. As Obamacare changed/increased regulations certain states went from 30 providers down to 4 or it may have even be 2.

And that's my query. How come some went down to four or five and others didn't. And that is the question that is not being answered...'o)

[jillian]

No. Ugh. I'm trying to tell you that the Obamacare regulations prevent insurance companies from selling across state regulatory lines. As Obamacare changed/increased regulations certain states went from 30 providers down to 4 or it may have even be 2.

Insurance companies have NEVER been allowed to sell across state lines and with very good cause. It has nothing to do with the ACA.

[Mr Happy]

Insurance companies have NEVER been allowed to sell across state lines and with very good cause. It has nothing to do with the ACA.

Is anybody going to answer my question.
All I have ascertained so far is that some states premiums went down and some went up.
CS says that some states went from 30 to 4 or 5 providers due to the ACA. He said it was due to the ACA legislation.
And my main query is how come some states were allowed to do this and others weren't? Hardly seems fair to me....

[jillian]

Is anybody going to answer my question.
All I have ascertained so far is that some states premiums went down and some went up.
CS says that some states went from 30 to 4 or 5 providers due to the ACA. He said it was due to the ACA legislation.
And my main query is how come some states were allowed to do this and others weren't? Hardly seems fair to me....

I alresdy answered that in certain states the ACA is being intentionally sabotaged. My guess is that in other states the regulations permitted carriers to act in ways or provide coverage in ways that do not comply with the ACA. So perhaps certain companies don't want to provide coverage if they have to cover things like pre-existing conditions.

oh. And the reason some states can do what they're doing is that the rightwing of the court said stated could opt out of Medicare expansion, etc.

[AmazonTania]

Those states already have over-regulated insurance markets. Obamacare isn't going to change much relating to the cost in health care insurance in those states.

There. Your question is answered.

[AmazonTania]

I alresdy answered that in certain states the ACA is being intentionally sabotaged. My guess is that in other states the regulations permitted carriers to act in ways or provide coverage in ways that do not comply with the ACA. So perhaps certain companies don't want to provide coverage if they have to cover things like pre-existing conditions.

How would sabotaging Obamacare bring cost down in only five states, when Obamacare is already designed to bring cost down?

I'm not even sure your rhetoric makes sense to even you. You just want to regurgitate partisan nonsense at every opportunity...

[jillian]

Jillian is so blinded by partisan hackery, she somehow forgot that Andrew Cuomo isn't right wing...

We have very informed voters in New York as you can see...

What are you blathering about?

You talking about anyone else being partisan is laughable.

[AmazonTania]

What are you blathering about?

Read the context of the conversation, and you'll figure it out. Eventually...


You talking about anyone else being partisan is laughable.

Maybe one of your problems is that you don't understand what the term means. Perhaps it would be better if you looked up the definition.

[Cthulhu]

What are you blathering about?

You talking about anyone else being partisan is laughable.

It's one thing to be a partisan hack, and another thing entirely to be a non partisan intelligence shining light onto darkness.

AmazonTania I would wager is one of the smarter people on the board. Even if she likes the concept of corporations.

[Mr Happy]

Those states already have over-regulated insurance markets. Obamacare isn't going to change much relating to the cost in health care insurance in those states.

There. Your question is answered.

So an over regulated market is a good thing? The more regulated you are, the cheaper the insurance?

BTW, I'm not playing devil's advocate or asking rhetorical questions here. I have little knowledge on how it all works stateside.

In Aussie, it's a little bit of a nightmare when it comes to private health insurance.
The private health in NZ was much better. Almost - gasp - socialistic in its make up!!

[Codename Section]

Insurance companies have NEVER been allowed to sell across state lines and with very good cause. It has nothing to do with the ACA.

Well the Republicans asked for that compromise--you know how you guys love compromise except when you don't--in 2010.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-big-gop-health-care-idea

[AmazonTania]

So an over regulated market is a good thing? The more regulated you are, the cheaper the insurance?

No. All it means is that prices can't get any higher. They're so high, the only direction prices can really go is down. The only way prices can become any higher in those places is if the local governments started subsidising insurance.


Consumer Price Index for Medical Care:


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=o3D


Annualised:



http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=o3B



BTW, I'm not playing devil's advocate or asking rhetorical questions here. I have little knowledge on how it all works stateside.

In Aussie, it's a little bit of a nightmare when it comes to private health insurance.
The private health in NZ was much better. Almost - gasp - socialistic in its make up!!

Better how?

[jillian]

Well the Republicans asked for that compromise--you know how you guys love compromise except when you don't--in 2010.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-big-gop-health-care-idea

that isn't a "compromise". it's a gift to insurance companies. because then they could incorporate in the state with the fewest regulations (like credit card companies do now) and screw over their insureds.

[jillian]

It's one thing to be a partisan hack, and another thing entirely to be a non partisan intelligence shining light onto darkness.

AmazonTania I would wager is one of the smarter people on the board. Even if she likes the concept of corporations.

see, and i think she's a pretentious dolt who likes TELLING people she's smart… when she's dishonest and really IS a partisan hack.

is there some reason your every post to me gets personal?

[Codename Section]

that isn't a "compromise". it's a gift to insurance companies. because then they could incorporate in the state with the fewest regulations (like credit card companies do now) and screw over their insureds.

Obamacare is a gift to insurance companies. YOU GUYS came up with it. YOU GUYS passed it all by yourselves. It was YOUR baby and its an expensive, sucky, unworkable, messy stupid baby.

Anyone ANYONE who felt that a for-profit corporation wasn't going to take those 4 years between then and now to find ways to profit is a fucking retard. A retard.

[Cthulhu]

that isn't a "compromise". it's a gift to insurance companies. because then they could incorporate in the state with the fewest regulations (like credit card companies do now) and screw over their insureds.

*OR*

Heaven forbid-

...lower prices from less burdensome regulations to gain more business and compete for the customers - like a capitalist would.

Egads. Not every corporation is Microsoft.

[Codename Section]

see, and i think she's a pretentious dolt who likes TELLING people she's smart… when she's dishonest and really IS a partisan hack.

is there some reason your every post to me gets personal?

She's never said she was smart OR nonpartisan. She says "I want to make money".

[Cthulhu]

see, and i think she's a pretentious dolt who likes TELLING people she's smart… when she's dishonest and really IS a partisan hack.

is there some reason your every post to me gets personal?

Trust me, we've never been personal. Ever. There is a list of about 15 people I get personal with. And half of them are family.

[Chris]

Well, she's got rose colored glasses on when it comes to Obama. A lot of women do. The lady who lives next door to us moved from San Fran (wish she'd move back) and she was telling me how he had "the best smile". I was like Candace Swanpool has great tits but I wouldn't vote for her for president.



I voted for Palin, I bet you'd vote for Candace.

[Cthulhu]

She's never said she was smart OR nonpartisan. She says "I want to make money".

Which is at its core, non partisan. But that doesn't mean one cannot profit from partisan actions. I know I would, so long as it is honorable and not evil.

[Chris]

Insurance companies have NEVER been allowed to sell across state lines and with very good cause. It has nothing to do with the ACA.



Yes, the free market would be such a terrible thing.

[jillian]

Obamacare is a gift to insurance companies. YOU GUYS came up with it. YOU GUYS passed it all by yourselves. It was YOUR baby and its an expensive, sucky, unworkable, messy stupid baby.

Anyone ANYONE who felt that a for-profit corporation wasn't going to take those 4 years between then and now to find ways to profit is a fucking retard. A retard.

see, again, i'll refer you to factcheck and the other non-partisan sites that debunk the anti-ACA rhetoric. and had i been president i wouldn't have tried to compromise with the right and use a heritage foundation plan that really was written by insurance company lobbyists.

but if we had a single payor system, the same people would still be in meltdown.

look, it's not perfect but it isn't what the radical right says either.

[Chris]

I alresdy answered that in certain states the ACA is being intentionally sabotaged. My guess is that in other states the regulations permitted carriers to act in ways or provide coverage in ways that do not comply with the ACA. So perhaps certain companies don't want to provide coverage if they have to cover things like pre-existing conditions.

oh. And the reason some states can do what they're doing is that the rightwing of the court said stated could opt out of Medicare expansion, etc.



And you were asked for evidence for that, something besides your overworked partisan hackery.

[Cthulhu]

Insurance companies have NEVER been allowed to sell across state lines and with very good cause. It has nothing to do with the ACA.

What is this supposed good cause? And what was the rational for it?

[AmazonTania]

Which is at its core, non partisan. But that doesn't mean one cannot profit from partisan actions. I know I would, so long as it is honorable and not evil.

I've profited plenty from the Obama administration. You guys need to stop trying to get rid of him. You're messing with my ability to make a paycheck, and to have a good laugh...

[Chris]

How would sabotaging Obamacare bring cost down in only five states, when Obamacare is already designed to bring cost down?

I'm not even sure your rhetoric makes sense to even you. You just want to regurgitate partisan nonsense at every opportunity...



Was that ever answered with any intellectual honesty?

[AmazonTania]

It wasn't answered at all. Answering it most likely would have implied that there wasn't much thought up into the statement.

[Chris]

that isn't a "compromise". it's a gift to insurance companies. because then they could incorporate in the state with the fewest regulations (like credit card companies do now) and screw over their insureds.



Obamacare certainly is a gift to insurance companies.

[jillian]

*OR*

Heaven forbid-

...lower prices from less burdensome regulations to gain more business and compete for the customers - like a capitalist would.

Egads. Not every corporation is Microsoft.

less burdensome regulations? like what? being allowed to continue to cut off people's health insurance when they need it most? not providing mammograms? not covering pre-existing conditions?

the entire POINT is to make sure people have legitimate health insurance… not the circumstance we have now where someone can be bankrupted by health care costs if they get sick.

[Cthulhu]

I've profited plenty from the Obama administration. You guys need to stop trying to get rid of him. You're messing with my ability to make a paycheck, and to have a good laugh...

Well, if tossing this monster overboard means you take a pay cut - than your pay check be damned. Besides, knowing you as the capitalista, you'd profit from its death throws. And I would rather you profit from its destruction than its growth.

But I wish you the best anyways.

[jillian]

Was that ever answered with any intellectual honesty?

it was answered. as usual you only like answers that confirm your biases.

[jillian]

What is this supposed good cause? And what was the rational for it?

i answered that.

[jillian]

I voted for Palin


you really shouldn't brag about that.

[Mr Happy]

Better how?

There was only one provider for a long long time called Southern Cross. Depending on your plan, you would get 80 or 100 percent back on every visit to the doctor or specialist. And they covered everything if you had an operation. However, they never covered dental (or very little).

The thing was, that it was not for profit, and all those who joined were members and therefore owned. So the only extra thing they had to cover costs were admin and the running of its hospitals. What's more it didn't cost an arm and a leg. About $250 a month for the family

[Codename Section]

less burdensome regulations? like what? being allowed to continue to cut off people's health insurance when they need it most? not providing mammograms? not covering pre-existing conditions?

Too bad you guys were so set on whoring with insurance companies who do bad things like that and not trying to drive down costs like that Oklahoma hospital did or even work with Kucinich on single payer.

But, I guess all those 2008 campaign contributions played a part in the decision to dance with the devil.

[AmazonTania]

less burdensome regulations? like what? being allowed to continue to cut off people's health insurance when they need it most? not providing mammograms? not covering pre-existing conditions?

the entire POINT is to make sure people have legitimate health insurance… not the circumstance we have now where someone can be bankrupted by health care costs if they get sick.

Perhaps you can explain, in the most coherent manner, how do you think older participants in the insurance plan will be able to cover newer participants for a pre-existing condition when these newer participants haven't allocated any money into the pool themselves?

Take all the time you need. I know you'll never muster enough courage to answer honestly.

[Cthulhu]

less burdensome regulations? like what? being allowed to continue to cut off people's health insurance when they need it most? not providing mammograms? not covering pre-existing conditions?

A company that violates its contract habitually will not remain in business long. Even an economic whiz such as yourself knows this.



the entire POINT is to make sure people have legitimate health insurance… not the circumstance we have now where someone can be bankrupted by health care costs if they get sick.

Have you checked out the deductibles of 10k+? How is that helping families? "Think of the chillin'z!!"

Such trite point to bring up.

[jillian]

She's never said she was smart OR nonpartisan. She says "I want to make money".

then you're not reading.

we ALL like making money. the difference is i don't believe it benefits us to turn this country into a banana republic.

[Codename Section]

Waits for: But we couldn't have passed single payer because the Republicans would have tried to stop us!

Forgets that they passed Obamacare without a single "yes" from Republicans and shut down the government in a standoff with Republicans to keep it.

[AmazonTania]

it was answered. as usual you only like answers that confirm your biases.

Where did you answer my question? In your head? I know whatever you're thinking sounds better in there than it sounds on the forum, but you don't have to make anything up...

[Cthulhu]

i answered that.

Which post?

[AmazonTania]

Well, if tossing this monster overboard means you take a pay cut - than your pay check be damned. Besides, knowing you as the capitalista, you'd profit from its death throws. And I would rather you profit from its destruction than its growth.

But I wish you the best anyways.

I wouldn't rather profit from either or. It just makes sense to hedge according.

I also wrote a forum post about which corporations to benefit from due to the new Health Care law.

[jillian]

Waits for: But we couldn't have passed single payer because the Republicans would have tried to stop us!

Forgets that they passed Obamacare without a single "yes" from Republicans and shut down the government in a standoff with Republicans to keep it.

you don't need to bold it… and rein it in a little, son. :)

it was the hope of the administration that using a heritage foundation plan would be a compromise. the president didn't anticipate how insane the right would become once he took office and had no idea they had decided in advance that they were going to obstruct everything he did from the day he was inaugurated.

i think his desire to compromise with people who had no intention to compromise was a huge personal flaw and he'd have done better to stomp them

[Mr Happy]

Perhaps you can explain, in the most coherent manner, how do you think older participants in the insurance plan will be able to cover newer participants for a pre-existing condition when these newer participants haven't allocated any money into the pool themselves?

Take all the time you need. I know you'll never muster enough courage to answer honestly.

Even I can answer that. There are more people without pre-existing conditions. A lot more...that will cover those with conditions. What's more, a lot of those conditions will not last forever, so they will end up paying into the system too, without taking much out.

However, the biggest problem with the US - and Australia for that matter - is the obesity problem. Not so much being a lard arse itself, but the problems it brings - heart disease, diabetes etc...That's the killer - both literally and figuratively. Of course, fat people die younger, so they do not put as much burden on the system later on in life...c'est la vie

[Chris]

it was answered. as usual you only like answers that confirm your biases.

You never answer "How would sabotaging Obamacare bring cost down in only five states, when Obamacare is already designed to bring cost down?"

[Chris]

you really shouldn't brag about that.


It was a joke, sorry you're so dour.

[Cthulhu]

I wouldn't rather profit from either or. It just makes sense to hedge according.

Which stands to make for profit though? Its success or it's demise?

In place of a heart, you have a stack of 20's. Admirable in one light, and shrewd in another. I hope I have a child with this sort of genius.



I also wrote a forum post about which corporations to benefit from due to the new Health Care law.

Must have missed it.

[Codename Section]

you don't need to bold it… and rein it in a little, son. :)

it was the hope of the administration that using a heritage foundation plan would be a compromise. the president didn't anticipate how insane the right would become once he took office and had no idea they had decided in advance that they were going to obstruct everything he did from the day he was inaugurated.

i think his desire to compromise with people who had no intention to compromise was a huge personal flaw and he'd have done better to stomp them

Naww, they treated Kucinich like a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. Don't buy it. When they saw the Republicans weren't going for it (which was ten minutes after they started) they could have given up and went with single payer.

Kucinich even had Ron Paul willing to help him stump so it would have actually been bipartisan.

[jillian]

Naww, they treated Kucinich like a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. Don't buy it. When they saw the Republicans weren't going for it (which was ten minutes after they started) they could have given up and went with single payer.

Kucinich even had Ron Paul willing to help him stump so it would have actually been bipartisan.

i wouldn't support well… almost anything kucinich wanted.

again, the point was to achieve a compromise position because they knew what happened during the clinton administration.

[The Xl]

Cronymania runnin' wild, brother.

[Codename Section]

i wouldn't support well… almost anything kucinich wanted.

again, the point was to achieve a compromise position because they knew what happened during the clinton administration.

And ten minutes after they started and realized it wouldn't happen they stuck with it because why?

[Codename Section]

Cronymania runnin' wild, brother.

You knows it, XL.

[AmazonTania]

Even I can answer that. There are more people without pre-existing conditions. A lot more...that will cover those with conditions. What's more, a lot of those conditions will not last forever, so they will end up paying into the system too, without taking much out.

However, the biggest problem with the US - and Australia for that matter - is the obesity problem. Not so much being a lard arse itself, but the problems it brings - heart disease, diabetes etc...That's the killer - both literally and figuratively. Of course, fat people die younger, so they do not put as much burden on the system later on in life...c'est la vie

How does that work? The healthy participants will have to pay for the health care treatments of the sick, as well as their own premiums. That causes their own rates to increase. Insurance is to cover catastrophic events that are unlikely to happen which can't be paid for with normal income and savings. If we could all get flood insurance, fire insurance or life insurance without paying a premium before the fact, we would.

There is a reason why insurance companies don't offer this on their own: It's not financially feasible. In the end, it will be lower risk individuals who will be paying for the medical care of higher risk patients.

[jillian]

And ten minutes after they started and realized it wouldn't happen they stuck with it because why?

because they thought they had the support of the medical people and the insurance companies who were working on the legislation… but as it turned out, who were, at the same time, funding opposition and disinformation.

[Chris]

you don't need to bold it… and rein it in a little, son. :)

it was the hope of the administration that using a heritage foundation plan would be a compromise. the president didn't anticipate how insane the right would become once he took office and had no idea they had decided in advance that they were going to obstruct everything he did from the day he was inaugurated.

i think his desire to compromise with people who had no intention to compromise was a huge personal flaw and he'd have done better to stomp them



The Heritage Foundation Plan was liberal in its individual mandate. Naturally establishment Reps liked it, and, just as naturally as Bush stole Kennedy's Medicare Drug Plan, so too did Obama steal Republican thunder because he like Bush is liberal.

The notion that it was initially Republican and therefore everyone should accept it is typical partisan nonsense.

[Peter1469]

Insurance companies have NEVER been allowed to sell across state lines and with very good cause. It has nothing to do with the ACA.

Perhaps it is time for a change.

Most of the insurance commissioners in Louisiana when I lived there got jail time.

[AmazonTania]

Which stands to make for profit though? Its success or it's demise?

In place of a heart, you have a stack of 20's. Admirable in one light, and shrewd in another. I hope I have a child with this sort of genius.

The way I see it, you're better off profiting from demise. Although the Stock Market is making record highs, these companies aren't growing with any real fundaments, they're paying investors, not with any real equity, but with debt. Also the country threw that phony strong dollar policy out the window.

Things can always change, but it's not likely. We're all in with no exit tragedy.


Must have missed it.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17176-Obamacare-Allows-Big-Business-To-Undercut-The-Economy

[Codename Section]

because they thought they had the support of the medical people and the insurance companies who were working on the legislation… but as it turned out, who were, at the same time, funding opposition and disinformation.

They did? And you trust these dumb assholes to write legislation? DERP. I trust insurance companies not to make a profit even tho I blame them for profiting over humans in the first place.

[jillian]

They did? And you trust these dumb assholes to write legislation? DERP. I trust insurance companies not to make a profit even tho I blame them for profiting over humans in the first place.

i wouldn't have trusted them. i knew they were liars and i thought any idea they would compromise was fantasy. but again, i wasn't running the show. but the reality is there has been no precedent for the type of obstructionism and lack of cooperation shown this president. so he might have had good cause not to expect what occurred.

[Chris]

i wouldn't have trusted them. i knew they were liars and i thought any idea they would compromise was fantasy. but again, i wasn't running the show. but the reality is there has been no precedent for the type of obstructionism and lack of cooperation shown this president. so he might have had good cause not to expect what occurred.



But the politicians you support did trust them and let them write the law. To quote The Xl, "Cronymania runnin' wild"!

[Codename Section]

i wouldn't have trusted them. i knew they were liars and i thought any idea they would compromise was fantasy. but again, i wasn't running the show. but the reality is there has been no precedent for the type of obstructionism and lack of cooperation shown this president. so he might have had good cause not to expect what occurred.

They didn't obstruct anything. The Dems had an anomaly for a brief period to get whatever they wanted and they squandered it. Not a single "yes" vote.

[Mr Happy]

How does that work? The healthy participants will have to pay for the health care treatments of the sick, as well as their own premiums. That causes their own rates to increase. Insurance is to cover catastrophic events that are unlikely to happen which can't be paid for with normal income and savings. If we could all get flood insurance, fire insurance or life insurance without paying a premium before the fact, we would.

There is a reason why insurance companies don't offer this on their own: It's not financially feasible. In the end, it will be lower risk individuals who will be paying for the medical care of higher risk patients.

Isn't that the whole point of health insurance? To spread the risk. Works for Southern Cross in NZ...as I said, helps to have no profit agenda. You see, I believe generally any type of insurance is to cover catastrophic events - except health insurance. Going to visit your GP is not a catastrophic event. Is it? And at least those who couldn't afford it are now paying into the system. Not everybody gets sick at once. And why should an insurance company be able to suck you dry for 30 odd years when you don't use it, and turn around as you get older and say "oh, you must pay more now?" I think you're looking at it as a risk assessment type of business. I see it has a service business.

I think you look at it like this: Mr Insurance Guy: "Hey, look, pay us $5000 grand a year for the next 30 years and we'll cover you in case you might get sick. However, once you reach 45 we'll jack up the prices, and sheet, son, when you get to 65 we'll REALLY jack up the prices."

Whereas my answer is this: "Sure, you take my $5000 a year for the first 30 years, but the quid pro quo is that is my insurance for when I really need you, so you just keep my premiums at a reasonable level".

Mr Insurance Guy, goes, "Er, no."

I have a moral issue with that. A big one.

[Peter1469]

Obamacare is a gift to insurance companies. YOU GUYS came up with it. YOU GUYS passed it all by yourselves. It was YOUR baby and its an expensive, sucky, unworkable, messy stupid baby.

Anyone ANYONE who felt that a for-profit corporation wasn't going to take those 4 years between then and now to find ways to profit is a fucking retard. A retard.

Obama care is a death sentence to insurance companies- but they get the chance to reap profits before they die off. That is the trade off. The executives are going to retire in style as the US descends into a single payer system.

[jillian]

Obama care is a death sentence to insurance companies- but they get the chance to reap profits before they die off. That is the trade off. The executives are going to retire in style as the US descends into a single payer system.

if it is, why did the heritage foundation have most of the same concepts?

and he and others are busy saying it's going to be a boone to insurance companies.

the reality is, it will be neither.

[Chris]

if it is, why did the heritage foundation have most of the same concepts?

and he and others are busy saying it's going to be a boone to insurance companies.

the reality is, it will be neither.


Have you actually read the Heritage Foundation paper, jillian, the only similarity is the individual mandate.

[Codename Section]

Obama care is a death sentence to insurance companies- but they get the chance to reap profits before they die off. That is the trade off. The executives are going to retire in style as the US descends into a single payer system.

That sounds like a conspiracy Pete. :)

[AmazonTania]

Isn't that the whole point of health insurance? To spread the risk.

No.


Works for Southern Cross in NZ...as I said, helps to have no profit agenda. You see, I believe generally any type of insurance is to cover catastrophic events - except health insurance. Going to visit your GP is not a catastrophic event. Is it? And at least those who couldn't afford it are now paying into the system. Not everybody gets sick at once. And why should an insurance company be able to suck you dry for 30 odd years when you don't use it, and turn around as you get older and say "oh, you must pay more now?" I think you're looking at it as a risk assessment type of business. I see it has a service business.

That's how it works. It's based on risk assessment. Car, Flood and Fire insurance is based on the same factors: Risk. Car insurance is based on your driving record, age, location and experience. All relates to how likely you are to get into an accident. Flood insurance is based on location and property value. All factors into how likely your home is to be damaged. It's the same with health insurance. It's based on how likely you are to become sick. If you are higher risked, then you should pay a higher premium. You can say that it's works to spread the risk where you live, but the economics of scale allows it. How much difficult could it be to spread the risk in a population of 4 million individual?

Insurers gather money into a pool and use that money when someone becomes sick. The more services your insurance provider is forced to cover, the more people will utilise them. The more their utilised, the more expensive it becomes to provide.


I think you look at it like this: Mr Insurance Guy: "Hey, look, pay us $5000 grand a year for the next 30 years and we'll cover you in case you might get sick. However, once you reach 45 we'll jack up the prices, and sheet, son, when you get to 65 we'll REALLY jack up the prices."

Whereas my answer is this: "Sure, you take my $5000 a year for the first 30 years, but the quid pro quo is that is my insurance for when I really need you, so you just keep my premiums at a reasonable level".

Mr Insurance Guy, goes, "Er, no."

I have a moral issue with that. A big one.

What is a reasonable level? You can't possibly expect a 65 year old to pay the same rates as someone who is 27...

[Peter1469]

How does that work? The healthy participants will have to pay for the health care treatments of the sick, as well as their own premiums. That causes their own rates to increase. Insurance is to cover catastrophic events that are unlikely to happen which can't be paid for with normal income and savings. If we could all get flood insurance, fire insurance or life insurance without paying a premium before the fact, we would.

There is a reason why insurance companies don't offer this on their own: It's not financially feasible. In the end, it will be lower risk individuals who will be paying for the medical care of higher risk patients.

Whatever it is - it isn't insurance. Redistribution of wealth comes to mind.

[Peter1469]

That sounds like a conspiracy Pete. :)

It is not a conspiracy if it is true.....

[Peter1469]

No.



That's how it works. It's based on risk assessment. Car, Flood and Fire insurance is based on the same factors: Risk. Car insurance is based on your driving record, age, location and experience. All relates to how likely you are to get into an accident. Flood insurance is based on location and property value. All factors into how likely your home is to be damaged. It's the same with health insurance. It's based on how likely you are to become sick. If you are higher risked, then you should pay a higher premium. You can say that it's works to spread the risk where you live, but the economics of scale allows it. How much difficult could it be to spread the risk in a population of 4 million individual?

Insurers gather money into a pool and use that money when someone becomes sick. The more services your insurance provider is forced to cover, the more people will utilise them. The more their utilised, the more expensive it becomes to provide.



What is a reasonable level? You can't possibly expect a 65 year old to pay the same rates as someone who is 27...

Can I get fire insurance on my condo after it is on fire?

[Mr Happy]

No.



That's how it works. It's based on risk assessment. Car, Flood and Fire insurance is based on the same factors: Risk. Car insurance is based on your driving record, age, location and experience. All relates to how likely you are to get into an accident. Flood insurance is based on location and property value. All factors into how likely your home is to be damaged. It's the same with health insurance. It's based on how likely you are to become sick. If you are higher risked, then you should pay a higher premium. You can say that it's works to spread the risk where you live, but the economics of scale allows it. How much difficult could it be to spread the risk in a population of 4 million individual?

Insurers gather money into a pool and use that money when someone becomes sick. The more services your insurance provider is forced to cover, the more people will utilise them. The more their utilised, the more expensive it becomes to provide.



What is a reasonable level? You can't possibly expect a 65 year old to pay the same rates as someone who is 27...

As I said, you and I see it differently. I see health insurance as a whole different kettle of fish because it involves people. Thus a system like Southern Cross that is not-for-profit. And it works. Yes, I expect them to have similar premiums. Sure, the older guy might have to pay a little more. To me, you want the health insurance industry to have it all their way. Hey, we'll take all your money when you are fit and healthy, but when you really need up, we'll sting you. That's bullshit from a humanitarian point of view. Not so much from a "Greed is good" POV...IMO

Doesn't put them in any better light when I read stuff like this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699

[Mr Happy]

Whatever it is - it isn't insurance. Redistribution of wealth comes to mind.

I don't have a problem with paying tax dollars into a health system that in all likelihood I'll need some day myself. It's like a long-term insurance policy. Sure, I might not get to use it because I might get hit by a bus, but ditto with health insurance. I think the insurance industry - in the main - needs a lot - and I mean a shitload - of regulations. I think a lot of them are shysters....

[Common]

I don't have a problem with paying tax dollars into a health system that in all likelihood I'll need some day myself. It's like a long-term insurance policy. Sure, I might not get to use it because I might get hit by a bus, but ditto with health insurance. I think the insurance industry - in the main - needs a lot - and I mean a shitload - of regulations. I think a lot of them are shysters....

All insurers are shysters, hurricane, home, auto, they cant lose. They charge lots of people lots of money then they decide what they are going to pay for and who and if they HAPPEN to lose some money on one event, like a hurricane which their business is to insure hurricane victims they want a HUGE increase, its all a setup.
Florida has not had a major or minor hurricane in 9 yrs havent even had a major tropical storm, they not only raised rates through the roof in the 9 yrs while paying OUT NOT ONE DIME they whined sink hole coverage was costing them too much so they got RICK SCOTT legislators to allow them just drop sink hole insurance from Hurricane insurance and guess WHAT, they charge a huge premium if you want it back.
Rick Scotts regulators hasnt said no to one increase for insurers or utilities.

When you bring up situations like this the right blames everyone else but the theives that purpetrate this fleecing of americans. They justify or blame the people that are the ones getting hosed.

[jillian]

It is not a conspiracy if it is true.....

except it isn't.

[patrickt]

Because in some states it's being intentionally sabotaged by rightwing governors.

Plus his "data" is from the heritage foundation and is likely questionable.

The vast right-wing conspiracy again just because they won't be socialists. Pitiful but the track record of liberals avoiding responsibility is intact.

[Chris]

Have you actually read the Heritage Foundation paper, jillian, the only similarity is the individual mandate.



Oh, jillian, going to respond to this?

[BB-35]

Ministry of silly walks....

[Alyosha]

I don't have a problem with paying tax dollars into a health system that in all likelihood I'll need some day myself. It's like a long-term insurance policy. Sure, I might not get to use it because I might get hit by a bus, but ditto with health insurance. I think the insurance industry - in the main - needs a lot - and I mean a shitload - of regulations. I think a lot of them are shysters....

That is fine because you have national health and low costs all around. You don't have a huge DEA budget, a huge CIA budget, a huge DOD budget.

America has a spending problem and unless the government wishes to slash all those budgets exponentially to implement single payer in a state with our population at this point will destroy the economy by overburdening both individuals and businesses with tax increases.

I agree that I would rather, much rather, put that $$ to health care than enforcement agencies, but people just want both...the wanting of both hands over dangerous authority to a government that has stomped its way across the globe by force.

No.

[jillian]

Oh, jillian, going to respond to this?

i did comment, chris. it's from the heritage foundation. that makes anything it says suspect.

you have yet to rely on the facts as clarified in factcheck and politifact and until you work from fact, there's really no discussion to be had

[Chris]

i did comment, chris. it's from the heritage foundation. that makes anything it says suspect.

you have yet to rely on the facts as clarified in factcheck and politifact and until you work from fact, there's really no discussion to be had



The question was did you actually read the Heritage paper, do you actually know what it says?

By your statements you did not and do not.

Nice deflection with opinion sites. The facts are in the paper.

[Mr Happy]

The question was did you actually read the Heritage paper, do you actually know what it says?

By your statements you did not and do not.

Nice deflection with opinion sites. The facts are in the paper.

I don't have any problem with people not trusting sources from certain places or media outlets - especially if they have shown in the past to be biased or have an agenda. That is the dangerous thing about taking sides like Fox does or the Washington Times or the NY Post...once it is obvious you have an agenda, then everything you say is treated with lip service. That's your risk.

[Chris]

I don't have any problem with people not trusting sources from certain places or media outlets - especially if they have shown in the past to be biased or have an agenda. That is the dangerous thing about taking sides like Fox does or the Washington Times or the NY Post...once it is obvious you have an agenda, then everything you say is treated with lip service. That's your risk.

Huh?

The problem here is jillian is claiming to know something from a source, a heritage Foundation paper, that, based on what she claims about it, she has not read.

[Codename Section]

i did comment, chris. it's from the heritage foundation. that makes anything it says suspect.

you have yet to rely on the facts as clarified in factcheck and politifact and until you work from fact, there's really no discussion to be had

They are both run by liberals. I think its funny you require a liberal group to fact check instead of you fact checking your own stuff.

Why do you trust people so much? I'm just a dumb grunt and I know to trust no one.

[Chris]

Again, jillian has several times now made claims that Obamacare is based on a paper by the Heritage Foundation. My challenge to her is to demonstrate she has actually read that paper because it does not support her claims. Perhaps I misread her last response as a deflection when it was an admission she did not read the paper but got her opinion from opinionated sources like factcheck or politifact.